(A practical legal article in Philippine context)

1) Defamation under Philippine law: the basics

What “defamation” means

Under Philippine law, defamation is the act of damaging another person’s reputation through an imputation (allegation) that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. The Revised Penal Code (RPC) recognizes three main forms:

Libel (written/recorded defamation) – RPC Art. 353 (definition) and Art. 355 (penalty) Covers statements expressed in writing or similar permanent form, including (in modern application) publications posted online.
Slander / Oral defamation – RPC Art. 358 Spoken defamatory statements.
Slander by deed – RPC Art. 359 Defamation done by acts (e.g., humiliating conduct) rather than words.

Cyber-libel (online defamation)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) includes “libel as defined in the RPC” committed through a computer system (commonly called cyber-libel). It is treated as a cybercrime variant of libel when the defamatory publication is made through information and communications technology (e.g., social media posts, blogs, online articles).

Practical takeaway:

Printed article, letter, poster, written message, recorded content → usually libel.
Spoken statement → usually oral defamation.
Online post / digital publication → often framed as cyber-libel (still anchored to the RPC definition of libel).

2) Elements you generally must prove (and what prosecutors look for)

A) Libel / Cyber-libel

To build a viable complaint, prosecutors typically examine whether these are present:

Defamatory imputation – there is an allegation that dishonors or discredits someone.
Identification – the offended party is identifiable (named, pictured, tagged, or identifiable by context even without naming).
Publication – the statement was communicated to at least one person other than the offended party.
Malice – generally presumed in defamatory imputations unless the statement is privileged (see defenses below).
Venue/jurisdiction facts – where it was published/printed/first released (and for online, where relevant acts occurred).

B) Oral defamation

Similar analysis, but publication is through spoken words and context matters heavily (tone, audience, gravity).

C) Common reasons cases get dismissed early

No clear “publication” to third persons (e.g., private message only to the offended party—though edge cases exist depending on who had access).
The subject isn’t identifiable.
The statement is framed as protected opinion/fair comment without provable malice and based on disclosed facts.
Evidence is weak, altered, incomplete, or not properly authenticated.

3) Police blotter: what it is—and what it is not

What a police blotter entry does

A police blotter is an official logbook record of incidents reported to a police station. For defamation, blottering is used to:

Create a dated, official record that you reported the incident;
Help establish a timeline (especially important for online posts that can be deleted);
Support later requests for investigation assistance (e.g., referral to cybercrime unit), if the police choose to help;
Provide a record you can reference when you file with the prosecutor.

What a blotter entry does not do

It does not automatically start a criminal case in court.
It does not substitute for a prosecutor-filed complaint-affidavit.
It does not guarantee police will investigate (defamation is usually complaint-driven and handled through the prosecutor’s office).

When blottering is especially useful

The post is going viral or you fear it will be deleted.
You need a formal time marker before evidence disappears.
There are threats or harassment alongside the defamation (which may involve additional offenses).

4) How to blotter a defamation incident (step-by-step)

Go to the police station with jurisdiction where you are (or where the incident is connected).
Bring government ID and evidence:
- Printed screenshots, URLs, account names, timestamps
- Copies of printed materials (pamphlets, letters)
- Names/contact details of witnesses who saw/heard the publication
Ask to record the incident in the blotter and request a blotter entry number.
Request a certified true copy or certification if available (practice varies per station).
If online, request referral to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) or local cyber desk if you need preservation guidance; even if you still intend to file primarily through the prosecutor, an ACG referral can help with technical documentation.

Tip: Keep your blotter narrative factual and chronological. Avoid adding insults or speculative claims; stick to what was published and what you experienced (harm, anxiety, reputational impact).

5) The main event: filing a criminal complaint for defamation

Where you file depends on the type

A) Written defamation (Libel) Libel is handled as written defamation under the RPC and has special procedural features. In practice, you file a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, and if probable cause is found, the prosecutor files the case in court.

B) Cyber-libel (RA 10175 in relation to RPC libel) You typically file with the prosecutor as well. Cybercrime cases are often raffled to designated cybercrime courts (usually RTC branches designated to handle cybercrime matters).

C) Oral defamation / Slander Often filed with the prosecutor (depending on local practice) and prosecuted in the proper lower court if appropriate, but the standard route is still to go through the prosecutor for evaluation and filing.

6) Who must file (standing) and authority to sue

The offended party must be the complainant

For defamation, the offended party generally must file the complaint. If the person defamed is a private individual, that individual is the natural complainant.

If the offended party is deceased

Rules get more technical. In many situations, close relatives or legal representatives may pursue related civil actions, but criminal defamation is personal in nature and may face limitations. If this scenario applies, the viability needs careful legal review.

Public officers and public figures

Public officials and public figures can file, but they often face a higher practical burden in overcoming defenses like fair comment and in proving malice in matters of public interest.

7) Preparing the complaint: what to write and what to attach

The core document: Complaint-Affidavit

A complaint-affidavit is your sworn narrative plus attachments. It typically includes:

Caption / heading “Complaint-Affidavit for (Cyber) Libel”
Your identity Name, age, civil status, address, and ID details.
Respondent’s identity Name and address, if known; if unknown, provide identifiers (account name, URL, profile, phone number, workplace, etc.).
Chronological statement of facts
- What was said/posted/published
- When and where you saw it
- How you are identifiable
- How it was published to others
- Resulting harm (reputation, work, family, mental anguish—keep it factual)
Legal basis (brief) Cite RPC provisions for libel/oral defamation and RA 10175 for cyber-libel if applicable.
Prayer / request Ask the prosecutor to find probable cause and file the appropriate information in court.

Attachments (this is where many complaints succeed or fail)

For online defamation (highly recommended evidence set)

Screenshots showing:
- The defamatory statement
- The account/page identity (profile name, handle)
- Date/time if visible
- URL visible if possible
Direct URLs/links printed on paper
Screen recording (optional but useful) showing the navigation from profile → post → comments/engagement
Affidavits of witnesses who saw the post and can confirm publication
Context evidence: prior posts, thread context, comments showing third-party access
Proof of identification: tags, photos, contextual clues proving you are the person referred to
Device and account details: where and when you accessed it

Important practical point: Screenshots can be attacked as fabricated. Strengthen them through:

Multiple screenshots showing the same content with surrounding context
Video capture
Witness affidavits
Prompt blotter entry and prompt filing (timeline consistency)

For printed/written defamation

Original or certified copy of the publication (newspaper page, leaflet, letter)
Proof of circulation or distribution (where and how it was distributed)
Witness affidavits from recipients/readers
If a letter: envelope, stamps, delivery proof, and the letter itself

Notarization and jurat

Your complaint-affidavit (and witness affidavits) must be subscribed and sworn before an authorized officer (notary public or prosecutor administering oaths). Many prosecutor offices require the affidavit to be in proper notarized form to docket the complaint.

8) Filing mechanics at the prosecutor’s office

While procedures vary by locality, the usual flow is:

Case intake / docketing
- Submit complaint-affidavit and annexes in required copies
- Pay minimal filing/processing fees if required by local rules (varies)
Issuance of subpoena
- The prosecutor issues subpoena to respondent to submit a counter-affidavit
Submission of counter-affidavit
- Respondent may deny authorship, claim defenses (truth, privilege, fair comment), raise jurisdictional issues, or attack evidence authenticity
Reply-affidavit / rejoinder
- You may be allowed to file a reply-affidavit addressing new matters
Resolution
- Prosecutor issues a resolution either dismissing or finding probable cause
Filing in court
- If probable cause is found, the prosecutor files the Information in the appropriate court

9) Courts and venue: where the case should be filed

A) Libel (written defamation) venue principles

Philippine libel rules include special venue rules. Common anchors include:

Where the defamatory material was printed and first published, or
Where the offended party resided at the time of commission (subject to legal specifics and proof requirements)

B) Cyber-libel venue complications

Cyber-libel raises questions like:

Where the post was made/uploaded
Where it was accessed
Where the offended party resides
Where the respondent resides
Which court is designated to handle cybercrime

Because venue defects can be fatal, cyber-libel complaints should pin down concrete venue facts (where you were when you accessed it, where the respondent is, where the account is operated from if known, etc.) and attach evidence.

10) Prescription (deadlines): do not ignore time limits

Defamation cases can be lost entirely if filed late. Philippine criminal law imposes prescriptive periods (time limits) depending on the offense and legal classification.

Because (a) libel is in the RPC but has special procedural provisions, and (b) cyber-libel is a hybrid (RA 10175 referencing RPC libel) with evolving interpretations over time, practitioners treat prescription as a high-risk issue and act fast.

Practical rule: If you are considering a criminal complaint for defamation, file as soon as possible—ideally while the publication is still available and well within months, not years.

11) Defenses you should expect (and how they shape your complaint)

A strong complaint anticipates defenses and addresses them with facts.

A) Truth (justification)

Truth can be a defense in certain contexts, but it is not a blanket excuse. The law’s treatment depends on:

Whether the imputation involves a crime or misconduct
Whether publication was made with good motives and for justifiable ends (a classic requirement in many defamation analyses)

B) Privileged communications

Some communications are privileged:

Absolutely privileged (rare; e.g., certain official proceedings)
Qualifiedly privileged (common; may require showing actual malice to convict)

If the respondent claims privilege, your complaint should focus on facts showing malice, recklessness, bad faith, or knowing falsity.

C) Fair comment on matters of public interest

Statements of opinion on public matters—especially about public figures—can be protected if they are:

Clearly opinion/commentary
Based on disclosed facts
Not motivated by malice and not presenting false statements of fact as truth

Complaint strategy: Distinguish between (1) opinion and (2) false factual imputation, and show why the statement is asserted as fact and is false.

D) No publication / no identification

Respondents often argue:

“It was private” or “only you saw it” (attack publication)
“I didn’t refer to you” (attack identification)

Complaint strategy: Include witness affidavits and context proving third-party access and identification.

E) Denial of authorship / hacked account

Common online defenses include:

“Not me” / “account was hacked”
“Someone else posted it”

Complaint strategy: Preserve as much account-identifying evidence as possible (profile details, consistent posting patterns, admissions in messages, corroborating witnesses). If available, include any direct admissions, DMs, or communications.

12) Evidence preservation for online defamation (practical best practices)

Capture immediately: screenshot + screen recording + copy URLs.
Capture context: profile page, about page, previous posts showing identity.
Multiple devices: take captures from another phone/computer if possible to reduce claims of manipulation.
Independent witnesses: have a witness view the post and execute an affidavit.
Do not edit images: keep originals; store backups.
Document timestamps: note date/time and your location when you accessed it.
Keep a chain of custody narrative: who captured what, when, and how it was stored.

13) Related legal options (often filed alongside or instead)

A) Civil action for damages

A defamed person may pursue civil damages, often connected to the criminal case (civil liability arising from the offense) or, in some circumstances, pursued separately depending on procedural posture and legal strategy.

B) Other possible criminal offenses (fact-dependent)

Sometimes “defamation” comes with other conduct that may fit different crimes:

Threats, coercion, harassment, identity misuse, unlawful recording, etc. Whether these apply depends on the exact acts and evidence.

C) Takedown / platform reporting

Not a court remedy, but practically important:

Report the content to the platform (Facebook, X, TikTok, YouTube)
Preserve evidence before it disappears due to takedown

14) Common pitfalls that derail defamation complaints

Filing based on anger rather than evidence: complaints must be evidence-led.
Overstating conclusions (“clearly a lie”) without showing why it’s false.
Ignoring venue: filing in the wrong place can lead to dismissal.
Weak authentication of online evidence.
Treating opinions as actionable defamation without showing false factual assertions.
Responding publicly with counter-defamation: this can create exposure to a counter-complaint.

15) Practical outline you can follow when drafting

Suggested structure (complaint-affidavit)

Personal details (complainant)
Respondent details (or identifiers)
Statement of facts (chronological, numbered paragraphs)
The exact defamatory words (quote verbatim; attach as annex)
Identification facts (why it’s about you)
Publication facts (who saw it; how it was shared)
Malice facts (bad faith, knowledge of falsity, motive, prior hostility, refusal to correct)
Damages/harm facts (job, business, family, emotional distress—fact-based)
Legal basis (brief)
Prayer
Verification and jurat (sworn)

16) What outcomes to expect after filing

Dismissal at prosecutor level (insufficient evidence, defenses, venue defects)
Finding of probable cause and filing in court
Possible settlement discussions (common in reputation disputes, though not always appropriate or successful)
Trial if the case proceeds and is not dismissed on motions

17) Key points to remember

A police blotter is a record, not the case itself.
The prosecutor complaint-affidavit (with strong attachments) is the core of a criminal defamation action.
Evidence quality and venue facts are the two most frequent make-or-break issues.
Online cases require extra effort in preservation and authentication.
Act quickly to avoid evidence loss and prescription risks.